Lately, I've been reading messages about how we should or should not
compromise with an other party in the hopes of getting 'some'
reduction in taxation and 'some' reduction in restrictive legislation.
Many of these messages point out that the average voter does not
understand Libertarian philosophy and does not have the time or
inclination to learn more. Some writers have even, sarcastically,
referred to these non-Libertarian citizens as "beer-swilling masses."
OK. I'll buy that. ... I like to swill beer from time to time myself.
Not only that, I sometimes go 3-to-5 days between shaves and have been
known to spend an entire weekend vegging in front of the boob tube!
(I'd guess that's why I can relate so well to my non-Libertarian
friends.)

Well, for all your complaints about not getting the message out to
these people, you (the message writers) have forgotten one thing.
These people watch TV! They not only watch it, they absorb current
political and social values from watching it! If we in the Libertarian
Party and Libertarians as a whole want to get our messages across to
the general citizenry, the best way to do so is to get on TV!
Now I live in Sacramento, CA and we've got a local access channel show
that comes on once per week, but that is not what I'm
advocating. I'm advocating getting TV scriptwriters to come up with
good, quality, exciting TV scripts that support Libertarian values and
degrade non-Libertarian values in each episode. We should and could
target both African-American and non-AA viewers simply by targeting WB
and BET shows for the former and the more mainstream channels for
others.

I would envision that we could come up with two or three good dramatic
series and four to six comedy series to spread over the weekly
spectrum. Perhaps we could even toss in a mini-series based on the
concept put forth in Kings of the High Frontier. This would be
great to show why business in space is good for people down on Earth.

Furthermore, we should find a hostess or host/hostess team to go head
to head with Rosie O'Donnell. That woman is a one-person fascism
parade and had got to be counteracted! Sure, this would be a
talk show just like any other, but, just as RosieO ham-fistedly
promotes her socialist agenda, we would just as strongly put forth
correcting views to offset.

Surely a really hot show would work like Law and Order, ripping
the plots from current headline crimes. Only, this time, each episode
would have a twist, whereupon it would be revealed that cops failed to
protect the rights of an innocent suspect, prosecutors deliberately
covered up the real facts or judges twisted the definition of the law
to suit their own prejudices, only to be overturned and set right
later by clearer-thinking Libertarian defense attorneys, judges, etc.
Sure, you'd think that we don't need to get so heavy-handed, but it
works for Law and Order and NYPD Blue so why mess with
the presentation -- just change the message!

I think we can all point to one show or another that is popular and
that constantly carries a pro-socialism or pro-"big brother
should be watching you" message. I have recently gotten hooked
on "West Wing" over the summer. (I'm a certified sci-fi nut so
last regular season I was always watching "Voyager".) "West Wing" is
an excellent TV series. It's also a highly-believable look at what a
generic Democratic President and his staff might be, do and believe.
I'm not saying I agree with the social and BoR issues, but this
is quality TV. These episodes really make you think about the
issues presented. Sure, they always come down on the side of Democrat
liberalism, but you get involved with how the characters come to a
decision as well as what the decision is.

My point is, people, ordinary, beer-swilling people, watch these shows
and, in watching, absorb the beliefs presented to some degree. They
tend to believe that this is how life works. Well, if we want to
educate the average citizen, this is where we need to do it!

The exchange between Scott Graves and Jonathan Taylor in the recent
TLE was a classic example of the sorts of misunderstandings that
divide our movement. Like Mr Graves, I read Mr Taylor's original piece
and thought he was skating close to the edge of calling for
revolution. He was not, as he mades clear in the letters, but it is a
misreading that I can understand.

Regarding Libertarianism as a political movement, what is difficult
about it is that there are two very different libertarianisms. One is
moral, a theory of justice; the other is a political, a political
direction or movement.

The liberal (meaning libertarian) theory of justice is absolute; it
makes no reference to any current political system. It assumes some
things -- individual rights, absolute ownership of self, justice of
acquisitions, justice of free trade -- and constructs moral and
political implications based on those things. This is the
libertarianism that Mr Taylor speaks of, and I think he is correct in
observing that it accepts no compromise. To compromise it is to have
another, different theory. The sort of compromises that can
"generalize" it to make current government policies fit in as just
would make it into socialism. Furthermore, the theory itself is no
mere political theory: it applies to individuals. So to accept
initiation of coercion as a political practicality is not
distinguishable from doing it personally. If you can justify
socialism in an individualist political theory, then you can also
justify murder -- and that seems, to put it lightly, wrong.

Libertarianism as a political direction is mostly a function of the
current state of affairs in the polity of concern. It is a political
movement, away from restrictive regulations and laws, but not towards
any specific endpoint beyond "less". A libertarian, an
anarchocapitalist, a Republican, and even some Democrats can agree
that there should be fewer laws and regulations, or that they should
be less restrictive. They will not agree, however, on exactly which
ones should go. Even if we throw out of consideration those who would
increase the net amount of laws and/or their restrictiveness
(cough Democrats cough), we are still left with the
problem of evaluating changes that would make us freer (however
we might define that), but which would not make us free. This
is the question, in a nutshell, of compromise. Note, though, that
regardless of exactly how we define political libertarianism, it has
no moral implications for the individual.

The question for the LP stalwart is thus: should the LP be an
education organization, concerned with teaching the public about the
Libertarian theory of justice, or should they be a political
organization concerned with the libertarian political movement?

What Mr Taylor is arguing, is that by upholding (both propounding and
living) the libertarian theory of justice, we may (or may not)
eventually get a just society. But if somebody doesn't, then how will
it ever happen? Someone has to do it, and it seems reasonable that
that someone should be us. This is true, but it creates a practical
problem for education, namely, that gradualist, compromise steps
cannot be propounded. If we believe that such measures can help the
(political) libertarian movement (and many of us think they can), we
are left in the somewhat strange position of hoping that others
(Republicans, perhaps) will implement policies that we will not
(cannot morally) support ourselves.

What Mr Graves is arguing, is that someone has to be a
libertarian (politically) or we will never even get started. While it
is true that a moral libertarian can be (in fact must be) a political
libertarian on some issues, it also seems abundantly clear that this
is not enough in this democracy -- our 1% or whatever for Vermont
carry is just not enough to make any difference. But perhaps 4% or 10%
for Must Issue laws is enough. So perhaps moral libertarians need to
find some accommodation with political libertarians. Exactly what sort
of support we might offer morally is a difficult question.

There is no clear answer, IMO, to the problem. If there were, I submit
that we would not have the political system as it is right now. Right
now I think our best hope is to hold out for better times, stall
Leviathan, waiting as the intellectual climate moves in our direction
(as it is), enough so to get a friendly supreme court. Then we shall
see.

Meanwhile, I hate to see the sort of anger in the ranks suggested by
Mr Taylor's response to Mr Graves. I have friends who are not
libertarians even politically. Their political stands are hurting and
killing people, for which they are (in a miniscule way) responsible.
And yet I extend them the personal courtesy I do anyone else,
including trying to see things as they do. They do not think that
socialism divides people into cannibalistic factions; they think they
are doing good in the world. I certainly hope that we might achieve
better understanding within our movement; we should at least recognize
that neither side of the moral vs practical debate has had much
success in recent times.

Thanks for a great round-robin discussion in TLE #86. You defended and
supported your positions brilliantly (I expect no less).

However, (God no, not however) it brings to light a Achilles
Heel in our party -- intolerance. I have seen, and been faced
with resistance to my personal interpretation of the meaning of being
Libertarian. A few of my past notes have generated some substantial
E-Mail (blew my box once), because my idea of being free was
different!

That's the name of the game here, free interpretation. I have spoken
on this previously, but never has such a great example come to light.
Healthy discussion is a good thing, but in my interpretation, there
are few good laws. Not many outside of the Bill of Rights, that is.
But that's my view.

It is doubtful any amount of compromise, or toadying up will make the
LP popular to the public at large. The basic message of freedom will
win out, peacefully. The idea that (by inferrence) that you would
advocate agressive action against the USGOV, is absurd. Readers of
this magazine with an I.Q. above 50 would know of this from your past
writings.

I enjoyed the "excerpts" from your speech, and was able to overlook
the attempt by Mr. Graves to paint you in a bad light. You were
certainly out pounding the pulpit, unlike many armchair adventurers in
our Party. Previously I wrote on the subject of actively discussing
Libertarian views with people, and I implore your readers again to do
so. Get in on a one-to-one conversation with friends and neighbors,
turn them one at a time. It's a good message, and they'll do the same.

People have to be coaxed out of the box that government has built
around them, but it can be done. The chief message, self-reliance and
responsibility, has to get out. Make people take individual initiative
and accountability for their lives and liberties. Let the Bill of
Rights stand as the law of the land, and stop using laws to shift
blame for actions or improper product use. For Christ's sake, I know
that I can get hurt falling off a ladder! It's not some poor slob's
fault for making it so I can fall off it. I also know the police will
not take a bullet for me, they don't have to. They'll probably not be
there, anyway.

In conclusion (if there can ever be one), the minutae of splitting
hairs will continue to wear down this Parties' strength, so everybody
get to work!

We in the Libertarian party often get the reputation of being
extremists because we have not prioritized our goals.

One example is our party's endorsement of open immigration.
Unfortunately, to most people in California that means unlimited
"child only" welfare payments to the US born children of foreign
nationals.

We need to set our priorities, and we need to clarify them in a
meaningful way to the general population. For example, we need to make
it clear that before we allow free immigration, we are going to
abolish the welfare system. Then we need to show how we are going to
abolish that welfare system without creating the bizarre and weird
images of children dying in the streets that such a concept creates in
the soft hearts of people who have watched way too much TV.

We also need to consider embracing some "game theory" ideas. Free
trade horrifies many people who don't watch too much TV because they
are afraid of the results if we allow free access to our markets for
nations that are highly protectionist. A suggestion that we consider
embracing the "tit for tat plus one more" game theory strategy will
help them recognize that we are not a bunch of demented idealists like
the socialists.

I refer to my strategy as "Law And Order" Libertarianism -- the goal
being to repeal as many laws as possible in the correct order.